Opposition groups in Zimbabwe are suffering harassment, intimidation and discrimination in the run-up to national elections on 29 March. Police in some parts of the country are clearly restricting the activities of opposition party members, while supporters of the ruling party enjoy total rights. Amnesty International has warned that the right to freedom of expression, association and assembly are being unnecessarily restricted in advance of the poll date.

An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by American policy analyst Marian Tupy and Zimbabwean lawyer legislator David Coltart leaves no doubt in one's mind that the 'façade of democracy' manifesting itself in so-called 'political pluralism' in Zimbabwe is indeed an illusion.

Explore the map and then consider whether elections held in this context can ever be considered 'free and fair'. Information on how to use the map, the map data limitations, and the background to how we mapped the data is provided below the map. Please visit our Zimbabwe Election Watch section, and explore our database for a comprehensive look at the many ways the articles listed in the SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections have been breached by the Zimbabwean government.

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem argues that regardless of the outcome in Zimbabwe, African people's solidarity should be with the Zimbabwean people

Zimbabweans go to the polls on 29th April the outcome of which many have forecast as going only one way: the 84 years old former Guerrilla leader and President since independence in 1980 will, willy-nilly, be ‘re-elected’ to power. Admittedly he is facing stiffer challenge than before in the person of his former Finance Minster, Makoni, and the official opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai.

If there is a more level playing field it may not be a foregone conclusion that President Mugabe will win. The playing ground is very much weighted against Mugabe’s opponents. In spite of the enthusiasm with which Makoni has been received both nationally and internationally by forces of regime change that are tiring of the dramas surrounding Morgan and beginning to wane in their support for him Makoni’s performance in the elections may actually be more to the benefit of Tsvangirai as it is at the expense of President Mugabe and his dwindling support within the ZANU-PF. I may be wrong but I don’t think the election will provide a Makoni moment. It is also highly unlikely that Morgan’s courage and perseverance in forcing open the political space is about to be rewarded with electoral victory. What the election may show is that as in Kenya in the 1990s the majority of the masses are tired of President Mugabe but the opposition is not ready to assume power.

The comparative experience from other countries in Africa with long term Personal/One party rule is that as long as the incumbent Maximum ruler is standing in the election it is more difficult to defeat the ruling party. A combination of intimidation, open bribery of voters, restraints on the opposition and the media or brutal force and scandalous manipulation of all rules governing the electoral processes will be used to retain power failing which direct theft of the votes would be effected. Senegal (Abdou Diouf) and Benin ( Kerekou) were exceptions in the 90s and early 2000s where Presidents in a One party Dominant state was defeated by an opposition alliance. In Kenya and Ghana before that it was not possible to defeat Moi/KANU and Rawlings/NDC respectively as long as the incumbents were standing. Coincidentally it took 10 years in both countries before the opposition could get their acts together and realise that individually they could not defeat the ruling party. Another factor is that in both countries the unseating did not happen without a significant breakaway from the ruling party thus eroding its hegemony through the equivalence of internal bleeding.

Is Zimbabwe at this stage now? Judged against the three factors I will say Zimbabwe has not arrived at the point for change. The incumbent is still standing. The opposition still believes they can win on their own or are expecting a runoff which will establish whether Morgan or Makoni is best placed to unseat their aged Uncle! Finally while Makoni represents an important internal rupture in ZANU-PF causing self doubt and realignment away from ZANU –PF the much talked about and expected break within ZANU-PF has not produced significant smoking guns. This means that so far not enough influential individuals and constituencies are willing to put their heads above the parapet to unseat Mugabe.

A particularly distorting aspect of the Zimbabwe conflict is the open advocacy for regime change by outside non African forces that has made it difficult for Africans to decisively intervene in the Zimbabwe situation without being dubbed lackeys of imperialism by Mugabe and his fellow travellers. Some of his more hard line supporters especially in the Diaspora have even accused some of us who openly criticise Mugabe and advise him to quit as being paid by MI5 and CIA!. What is so revolutionary about taking a country that you help to build back to the dark ages just to prove you are a strong man to Bush and Blair! Many of those who cheer Mugabe as revolutionaries from their rostrums outside Zimbabwe would not go and live and suffer in ‘revolutionary Zimbabwe’.

The focus on the Anglo-American and Western multiple standards in relation to Zimbabwe also make many Africans suspicious of the opposition and amenable to Mugabe’s propaganda that his opponents are traitors’ to the cause of Zimbabwe and Africa. In particular Morgan/MDC’s perambulations on the Land issue (very popular with Africans with historical memory of land alienation by colonialists) further strengthen their hostility. While Mugabe/ZANU –PF complain about the ‘unfair’ coverage they get from Western Media I have never heard them raise any query about their overwhelmingly positive image in many African Media!

However we should not allow other people’s agenda, legitimate or illegitimate, to detract us from formulating our own. The knee-jerk cold-war induced reaction of ‘if the Americans are here I must be there’ no longer hold. This does not mean that imperialism is dead or that the West has suddenly become our friends but their enemies need not necessarily be our heroes or heroines either. It is certainly not the case that everybody opposed to President Mugabe is a traitor working for the British just like it is true that not all those refusing to back the opposition are supporters of of ZANU-PF/Mugabe. They may even be ZANU-PF loyalists without being fans of Mugabe.

Our solidarity is with the people of Zimbabwe whether they are in ZANU-PF or outside of it and their right to choose those who govern them. President Mugabe does not own the people of Zimbabwe. They are no less Zimbabweans for voting the opposition therefore it is most undemocratic for President Mugabe to say as quoted recently that the opposition will never rule Zimbabwe in his life time . That is a decision that only the people of Zimbabwe can make.

This election may be another missed opportunity for changing the deplorable conditions that the long suffering masses of Zimbabwe live with. Real change may not happen until after President Mugabe either quits (highly unlikely) or is retired by the ancestors. Zuma coming to power in neighbouring South Africa may also trigger realignments that may limit Mugabe’s room for manouvre.

*Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem writes this syndicated column in his private capacity as a Pan Africanist. His views are not attributable to that of any organization he works for or is affiliated with.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Brian Raftopoulos argues that the SADC mediated talks between ZANU-PF and MDC were undermined by the unwillingness of Zanu PF to allow for a significant opening up of political spaces in the country. He further argues that SADC's endorsement of an outcome that did not take broad democratic principles into account was in effect an endorsement of Mugabe

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/356/46870map.jpgThe 2007 SADC mandate to South Africa to broker an agreement between Zanu PF and the MDC should be seen as an extension of the “quiet diplomacy” that has been the hallmark of the South African and SADC approach to the Zimbabwe crisis since 2000. It took on an added urgency after the brutal public beating, arrest and torture of opposition and civic leaders in March 2007 and the widespread attacks on the MDC structures that followed thereafter. A combination of international pressure and the obligation by SADC to be seen to be taking action on the Zimbabwe question, led to an Extra-Ordinary SADC Heads of State Summit in Tanzania at the end of March 2007 at which South Africa was given the facilitation mandate on Zimbabwe.

There was widespread cynicism in many quarters both within and outside of Zimbabwe about the possibility of success of such an intervention, given the history of SADC’s supine position on Mugabe’s authoritarian regime. However it also presented an opportunity for national, regional and international forces to navigate a common approach out of the Zimbabwean debacle by reaching a political agreement that would be broadly acceptable to all sides.

For the MDC, weakened by the split in the organization since 2005, there was little alternative to such talks, as other methods of confronting the Mugabe regime had hitherto been handled with characteristic intolerance and repression by Zimbabwe’s ruling party. Mugabe, under strong pressure from SADC to enter the dialogue, had little option but to at least be seen to be willing to talk to the opposition. The South Africans, always keen not to make any interventions on Zimbabwe without regional support, saw this as an opportunity to push their “quiet diplomacy” agenda, and perhaps end up with their longstanding hope for a reasonably free and far election that would result in a Government of National Unity led by a reformed Zanu PF. The EU and the US, long frustrated by Mugabe’s intransigence and the regional and continental solidarity he continued to receive, also had little alternative but to allow the “point man” Mbeki the time to play his hand.

Mbeki started out with the intention that the dialogue between Zanu PF should achieve three objectives. Firstly both parties should endorse the decision to hold parliamentary elections in 2008. Secondly they should agree on the steps that should be taken to ensure that all concerned accept the elections as being truly representative of the “will” of the Zimbabwean people. Thirdly, that there should be agreement by all political parties and “other social forces” on the measures that should be implemented and respected in order to facilitate a legitimate election. The “other social forces” referred to the civil society groups who were cast in a more or less supporting role in the whole play.

Towards the end of 2007 the facilitation had, in the words of the MDC, reached “significant but not full consensus” on a number of areas in a political agreement covering issues of violence, sanctions, land, abuse of traditional leaders and food aid. The talks themselves, begun in an atmosphere of enormous distrust, appeared to have made some progress, with Zanu PF swallowing the bitter pill of negotiating with an opposition party that it had since 1999 labeled a foreign construction.

The dialogue also provided the divided MDC with an opportunity to work together as joint negotiating partners, even as attempts to re-unite the two formations were continuing parallel to the SADC facilitation. Discussions on the various aspects of the SADC dialogue added to the urgency of the need for the two MDC’s to at last work towards an election pact that would allow them to fight the 2008 Presidential and general elections together. Moreover it was clear to the MDC negotiators that if the talks were to break down with Zanu PF it had to be seen to be the fault of Mugabe’s party, and not due to any obstructiveness on the part of the opposition.

As matters transpired it was precisely the intransigence of Zanu PF and the unwillingness of Zanu PF to allow for a significant opening up of political spaces in the country, that lead to an impasse in the negotiations at the end of 2007. Notwithstanding some small changes to the media and public order legislation, the ruling party proved unwilling to make substantive changes on the issues that would affect the transitional political arrangements that would precede the 2008 elections. At the centre of the political deadlock that emerged in December 2007 were three areas: the date of the election; the timeframe for the implementation of the agreed reforms; and the process and modality of the making and enactment of a new constitution. Mugabe’s unilateral proclamation of the election date for 2008, outside of an agreement of these substantive issues, effectively put an end to the SADC facilitation process.

The SADC announcement on the 4th February 2008 that Mbeki’s facilitation had resulted in the political parties reaching an “agreement on all substantive matters relating to the political situation in Zimbabwe” and that the matters outstanding were merely procedural, was the worst kind of political dishonesty. What might have been a principled stand by the outgoing President Mbeki turned into another disgraceful endorsement of the politics of a repressive regime.

The SADC has once again demonstrated its inability to distinguish between Africa’s concern for imperialist interventions, and its commitment to the democratic and human rights of the region’s citizens. It has subordinated the latter to a grubby solidarity with a repressive political regime that has transformed a lofty Pan Africanist discourse into a spurious attempt to legitimize a authoritarian political project. The regional organization had an opportunity to send an unambiguous message to Mugabe that unless he fulfilled the objective of establishing the conditions for a broadly acceptable free and fair election, he could not expect the customary solidarity of SADC. Such a position could have changed the dynamic of Zimbabwean politics decisively and helped to ensure that further intransigence on Mugabe’s part would be met with stronger censure in the region.

That SADC once again took the line of least resistance has demonstrated its lack of commitment to questions of democratic principle, and its priority of protecting libration leaders who have long failed their citizens. However perhaps a Makoni victory in the forthcoming elections will satisfy the need by some SADC members for a reformed Zanu PF solution, for a long time the real objective of “quiet diplomacy.”

*Brian Raftopoulos, Director of Research, Solidarity Peace Trust. This article first appeared in the Mail and Guardian.

** Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Mary Ndlovu argues that in spite of the obstacles placed by ZANU-PF, Zimbabwean people must at a minimum strive to vote Mugabe out of power and elect a leadership that will unite Zimbabwe, rebuild the economy and deliver justice and healing as opposed to revenge

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/356/46869mugabe.jpgAnyone trying to predict the outcome of the Zimbabwean election must be either bold or foolhardy or both. No sooner has a prophesy gone to press than a new factor slips into the equation and everything has to be re-calculated. Commentators are reduced to scenarios – and the number of scenarios required to cover all eventualities and twists of fate multiplies by the day.

And yet six short weeks ago it all looked sealed and delivered to Robert Mugabe. Morgan Tsvangirai’s formation of the MDC had refused, against their own party’s and President’s apparent interests, to form a coalition with the Mutambara faction. Without a united opposition, ZANU PF could not fail to win. Nothing would change, our downward rush to disaster would not be halted.

If a week is a long time in politics, six weeks is an eon. Enter Simba Makoni, and it all looked different. For the first time, the long talked-of split in ZANU PF would make a difference at the polling stations. For the first time, there would be a three-way contest for the top position. For the first time, Mugabe might not know who would do his bidding and who would subvert it. For the first time, there could be a run-off vote.

As campaigning has picked up to full steam, several further factors have come into play. The economy deteriorates at a faster pace than ever, with the value of the Zimbabwe dollar dropping by mid March to one tenth of its value in the middle of January. Food is either unavailable or unaffordable, and ZANU PF seems to be short of supplies to give out to their loyal supporters (if they can identify them). The civil service goes on strike and has to be enticed back by massive salary increases, which in fact, it seems will mostly not be paid before the election. Even the army have yet to be paid the amounts promised. The salary increases will further increase the pace of the downward plunge in standards of living as inflation spirals upward.

Even more important, as opposition candidates move into the rural areas, a miracle seems to be happening – the rural voters are awakening from the trance which made them believe that ZANU PF was their party and Robert Mugabe their man.

But the questions only multiply. Who will the rural voters support in place of Mugabe – Makoni or Tsvangirai? And who will they vote for in the parliamentary elections, where instead of the straight ZANU PF-MDC choice of the last three elections, there are sometimes two ZANU PF candidates and two or even three MDC candidates, plus several others, including independents supporting Makoni.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/356/46869billb.jpgWhat kind of chaos will result as the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission attempts to stage a highly complex election composed of four ballots being cast and counted in 11,000 polling stations? What will Mugabe do if he realizes that he has lost any possibility of winning the vote and at the same time can’t rely on a dedicated rigging system? Will he rely on the military brass, who insist they will not allow anyone else to win? And will they be able to rely on their troops, reportedly supporting opposition candidates, and even said to be short of ammunition? All or at least some of these questions will be answered very soon, but to try to predict them requires a high level of audacity.

Are there any certainties regarding this election? Two very important ones.

The first is that there is no minutest possibility of a “free and fair” election. Those observers from SADC who boast that it can still be so are only destroying their own credibility. The government has totally ignored amendments to the Electoral Act, to POSA and AIPPA. There is no independent electronic media, there is blatant campaigning for the ruling party in the state media, there is bias in the behaviour of the police, the arrangements for the electoral process are shambolic, with ZEC even having to withdraw some of their own information pamphlets, no meaningful voter education has been allowed, not to mention the chaos of the voters’ roll, the partisan nature of the delimitation which went before and the uneven allocation of polling stations. And now the familiar process of last-minute amendments to the Electoral Act has begun – using the Presidential Powers Act to reverse changes made by agreement during the Mbeki-led mediation

The second certainty is that this election presents the electorate with two tasks: getting rid of the incumbent President in spite of the unevenness of the playing field, and replacing his government with one which can unite Zimbabweans to renew and rebuild the Zimbabwean nation in all its aspects.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/356/46869Makoni.jpgAre Zimbabweans capable of using the seriously flawed electoral process to remove Mugabe, or will he manage to hang on once again? That is the first issue, and there is no doubt that with the entry of Simba Makoni into the game, it becomes a distinct possibility. Why? Because Makoni has created the necessary split in ZANU PF, and he has offered a three-way contest. This makes it very difficult for any of the three to win over 50% of the vote. But who will the ZANU PF deserters vote for? Sizes of crowds and results of rudimentary opinion polls can not be relied on, and people in rural areas are still making acquaintance with the challengers. Makoni apparently believed that he needed to present himself as ZANU PF in order to gain the disaffected vote, but he could be wrong. Once the spell is broken, people may desert not only the leader but the party as well. Tsvangirai is reported to be drawing large crowds at rallies in smaller towns, but Makoni too is being greeted with excitement as he whistle-stops through rural areas.

Will the people speak for Makoni, or will they speak for Tsvangirai, and will Mugabe be able to stifle their voices through manipulation of the process? These are the questions that this election should answer.

To look at the last question first. There is no doubt that there is a loosening of the hold of state security over the people, even in Mugabe strongholds. The fear factor and the patronage factor are still there, but their influence will not be as great this time in securing ZANU PF votes. The rigging factor is impossible to calculate. It will surely play some role, but if people vote in large numbers, as it seems they may do, it will be more difficult, it may have to take place at the very top, and the loyalty of the riggers is in any case in doubt.

But all Zimbabweans need to look around and see that the new political landscape requires new responses. They have, like many voters around the world, voted with their emotions and their hearts, demonstrating their loyalties to the parties with which they have long identified, and to individuals whom they trusted to govern them. That is no longer a viable approach to voting. Zimbabweans must learn to think strategically. What vote is most likely to dislodge Robert Mugabe, to end the corrupt and despotic rule of ZANU PF?

A vote for Tsvangirai assumes that his party can win enough votes from ZANU PF to carry the day. Mutambara’s MDC has already declared for Makoni, and there are signs that much of Matabeleland will heed that call. Can Tsvangirai, with so many of his supporters outside the country, retain the rest of his traditional following, and gain a very large number of former ZANU PF voters? Or is Makoni more likely to draw support as a new, fresh face appealing to both disaffected former MDC and former ZANU PF voters, and representing the idea of co-operation rather than polarisation? A vote for Makoni will assume that Tsvangirai’s time has passed and he would not be able to attract enough of ZANU PF to gain large numbers. Zimbabweans have to consider these possibilities carefully, and vote for the one they think is most likely to oust Mugabe.

If this election is primarily about showing Robert Mugabe the door, the key question for voters is which of the two challengers is likely to succeed in drawing more votes.

But the second task is to choose which of the two is more likely to take us into re-building mode selflessly, with the interests of social justice for the people the main motivation. Again, both have baggage – Tsvangirai is dragged down by the self-interested squabbling within his party which begins to look more and more like ZANU-PF itself; their tendency to insult and denigrate other opposition forces instead of seeing them as allies in a common cause is not promising. Makoni will bring with him some ZANU PF loyalists who could not stand up to criticize their party’s evil doings, and others who have been direct beneficiaries of that evil.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/356/46869airball.jpgWhat will be needed will be strong leadership which can give the country a new vision of a united people, while curbing any excesses of their adherents. Zimbabwe needs someone who can reach across party lines and treat the sicknesses of hatred and greed, while ensuring that evil-doers do not escape with impunity. Each voter will have to ask himself, not which candidate gains his sympathy, but which candidate can do both jobs.
Political goals cannot be reached in a single leap. This election will not bring social justice in Zimbabwe. But there are critical achievements that can be made through this election:

- Remove Robert Mugabe from power and end his catastrophic rule.

- Put into power a government that can unite the people to embark on the tasks of restoring rule of law, rebuilding the economy, bringing justice not revenge, healing and dignity to Zimbabweans.

We would dream for the achievement of both, but even if only the first is attained we will have taken at least one step forward.

There is of course the possibility that even the first task will fail. But it is clear that there is a seismic shift in the Zimbabwean political scene which has to produce significant change. If it is prevented from coming through the ballot box, then we surely will face some very dark days in Zimbabwe. Many dangers lurk in the coming weeks, whoever is declared the winner. But progressive Zimbabweans must not give way to despair and assume that the election is already pre-determined against us. If we want change through the vote we must hope and believe and work to reach our goals. In spite of all the odds, if Zimbabweans are prepared to overcome fear, to cast aside emotional loyalties, to think and vote strategically, and to keep their eyes on the goals of peace and social justice, much is possible.

*Mary Ndlovu is a Zimbabwean human rights activist.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

***Also read more of Mary Ndlovu's Zimbabwe analysis.
Blowing Away the Rhetorical Smokescreeens in Zimbabwe

The latest report from the International Crisis Group, examines likely scenarios for Zimbabwe’s simultaneous presidential, parliamentary and municipal elections. Even though President Robert Mugabe has two serious challengers, including for the first time one from within his own ruling party, he probably has the means to manipulate the process before, during and after balloting, sufficiently to keep his office, though possibly only after a violent run-off. If that happens, no government will emerge capable of ending the country’s long crisis.

An electoral amendment, passed by Robert Mugabe on Monday, sparked renewed fears that Zanu PF is determined to rig the March 29 election. State radio announced Tuesday that Mugabe amended electoral laws to allow policemen into polling stations to ‘assist’ illiterate people to vote. The opposition immediately slammed the amendment saying it violated agreements reached at the SADC brokered talks. Policemen were barred from being within 100 metres of a polling station because it was felt they would intimidate voters.

It appears that the policy of “quiet diplomacy” practiced by South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki is about to be applied to the regional observer mission deployed to Zimbabwe. South African parliamentarians assigned to the SADC team that will be monitoring Zimbabwe’s elections have been ordered not to issue independent statements.

Zimbabwe's main opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader has condemned plans to count presidential ballots centrally, saying this will help rig the 29 March election. "I will not be part of an illegal process," said Morgan Tsvangirai, who will be challenging president Robert Mugabe alongside Simba Makoni and demanded that all votes be counted at polling stations.

On the eve of the March 29, 2008 presidential and parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe, with Robert Mugabe in power since 28 years and seeking another term as President, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a joint programme of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), is publishing a report entitled ZIMBABWE: Run up to the March 29 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections - A Highly Repressive Environment for Human Rights Defenders.

John Mutambirwa responds to Grace Kwinjeh and Patrick Bond's commentary on Zimbabwe [http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/46561]

AN UNTHINKABLE AND WELCOME GUESS!

Given the kind of social, political and intellectual ferment that characterizes Zim society today, it certainly should not be considered a rude, unjust and unsporting impertinence for one to voice a few cautionary reservations about the gushingly generous laudations usually heaped on the current Zim government's early successes in ushering in a rapid amelioration of education and health. While these approbations are, indubitably, well merited, what cannot be easily comprehended is a hypothetical re-imagining of history which would attempt to gauge what a Sithole, or a Nkomo, or even a Muzorewa, administration would have achieved in the same areas.  That a real-time social re-creation of such a development(s) is impossible, yet imaginable, is one of the tantalizing humours of human history. My immediate and ill-educated guess is that, success in these areas, given any of the cited possibilities, would not have been significantly different.

OF ECONOMY OF CENTS

Good commentary on the economic hiccups concerning the future of Zim. Couldn't agree more.  I am very much in agreement re commentary on plan for economic transformation that is embraced by the opposition. It does not seem to differ much from that which RGM, and desparate (if well fed) company, have practised to date -- i.e neoliberalism -- with the exception that the one in evidence to date seems to be a particularly insiduous strain of fascist capitalism which requires a close relationship between the state and economic elites -- the state elite being mostly composed of top dogs in the ruling party, of course -- some of them being men and women of significant economic substance.

That is one of the reasons I find certain well-measured bellyaches regarding the Zim situation (which cavils, unfortunately, verge towards thoughtful casuistry) by business friendly gadflies alarmingly misleading.  It would appear that they have never asked themselves how an administration, seemingly committed to a more-or-less egalitarian socio-economic ethos, would have so easily (providing, of course, that the recipients of such munificence played political ball) allowed a chosen few facile ownership of a variety of business concerns in Zim, be it in tourism or mining or whatsoever.  This certainly appears to be a weird way for the government to express its egalitarian, socialist ethos!!  I shall not comment on the glaring, obtaining, lopsided wealth and income distribution that currently characterizes the same exemplar of socialist management!!  Bless your soul, John Saul!

This is the kind of intellectual malaise I find afflicting even indigenous critics of the status quo, who mindlessly refer to RGM's regime as socialist.  Pity that the same chorus is then repeated by respected, if equally indolent and irrelevant, international commentators.  A government that is neoliberal to the core is then presented as a bunch of wooly-headed impractical idealists of the socialist school.

A SLIGHT AND SLEIGHT DIGRESSION

Perhaps a modest digression on this socialist theme is here necessary.  I confess that I am tempted to discuss this theme with passionate garrulity, but will have to - given the beckoning and sobering realization that I might be both unwisely worrying the reader's finite patience and also that I am loath to display my spotty comprehension of such a comprehensive theme to a glowering public - limit my comments to a few timidly expressed points.

The continued reference - as socialist - (in the name of unreflective mutilation of meaning!) to the sort of economic management, on display in both contemporary Zim and China, is so mindboggling as to drive one to a madhouse.  In the abidingly erratic view of this author, what would seem to be the obtaining administrative pattern in the economic realm of the latter is a robustly authoritarian dirigisme (which is hardly in comportment with the socialist trends - equally despotic - of its immediate past), and in the former (as in most economically battered developing countries), a markedly diffident version (fearfully and sporadically manifested) of the same dirigisme - a not-too-surprising scheme of things, in light of the apprehensive and furtive glances over their shoulders that the policy makers, of such a country as Zim, steal at the headmasterly ferrule of Mr Bretton Woods.

The immediately preceding comment might provoke a pained and censorious brouhaha from those who would be quick to counter that recent events, indicative of counterproductive administrative meddlesomeness (price controls being one of them), are unambiguous pointers to Zim's embrace of the dirigisme of the robust variety.  I cannot accede to this criticism, for current manifestations of official meddlesomeness are little more than desperate actions resorted to to ameliorate an irremediably wretched situation. A very instructive instance of the emotively deflating observation, "too little too late". The telling damage was done long ago during the heady days of maddening flirtation with the enticing magic of the Washington Consensus,  whose sudden termination left Zim officialdom with a broken heart and a diminished will to live. Besides, one might as well mention in passing the schizophrenic policy clashes, within the administration, that occasionally manifest themselves in contradictory approaches to formulation and implentation of policy between Prime Minister Gono's office and the Presidency.

One wonders when the next batch of extremely worn out Zim dollars will be dispatched to the punctilious Bretton Woods debtors!  Which again makes me wonder what the MDC's thoughts on the debt overhang are. Will the MDC threaten a well planned delinquency - a la Argentina - or will it let fall a loud diplomatic blare re debt cancellation?  My person has run out of tea leaves (perhaps, a reflection of the prevalent, obtaining, dire economic straits!) to consult with regard this particular.

The same errant train of thought effectively afflicts the same social critics in their approach to such headline-grabbing themes as "Nationalization" and "Indigenization" and the intellectually lazy tendency (so liberally exibited by the same critical horde) towards treating them as semantically and practically interchangeable.  The former (given that democratic discourse and practice are its defining hallmarks) can be properly referred to as a move towards effecting a more equalitarian social dispensation at best, or, in somewhat more diluted form, a move towards smoothing the jagged edges of a remotely socially sympathetic capitalism - both outcomes being discretionarily engineered by the government then ruling.  The latter has, all too often, exhibited itself as none other than the much discredited classical nationalism informed by the philosophy of displacing a colonial with an indigenous elite.

AND MORGAN THE PILATE

" And what is truth?", asked the jesting and intellectually ovewhelmed ruler of Judea. One gets the far from easy sentiment that Morgan Tsvangirai is in like intellectual and spiritual torment when one considers his answers to questions on the economy when he was recently interviewed by SWradioAfrica on this particular.

To begin with, it is rather difficult to get a good read on Morgan's comments regarding developmental assistance (be it gratis or in the form of manageable loans).  Depending on the language in which such assistance is robed, it can be, and has probatively been so in many instances, developmentally malign.  It is rather difficult to imagine that a prostrate economy, such as Zim's, still has a sufficient reservoir of bargaining energy (usually a confident companion of an advanced degree of economic autonomy) to emerge as mutual winner in negotiative gives-and-takes regarding this particular.  Nor is it easy to imagine that, in the interests of prudent self preservation and careful navigation of all possible priorities, Morgan and company have cast a thoughtfully tentative glance at Latin America. My uninformed guess is that little cerebration has been expended in this direction. It can only be fitfully guessed how much Latin American Chavistas would like to establish a beachead for their brand of social governance in Africa and also what the warmth of receptivity of oppositional policy wonks to such a diplomatic overture would be.

The same commanding uncertainty accompanies Morgan's view on subsidies. Morgan emphatically pointed out that no such discretionary assistance would be forthcoming to local companies and individuals who can afford it.  These are brave fighting words in the teeth of the global opening up of the economy and the ubiquitous presence of South African influence in many facets of the Zim economy.  It also seems to pay scant regard to the companion deindustrialization of the opening up of the economy experienced in the immediate past -- not locally beneficial arrangements these, in terms of wealth creation and concomitant increase of employment oppsrtunities. Nor does it consider how to counter South African competition in both local and regional (perhaps, effectively lost and and now irretrievable) markets without arranging for some form of enabling subsidies to local producers.. And, by the way, these problems will manifest their enduring qualities even in a Zim minus RGM or ZANU!

It would appear that a robust discretionary meddling with the economy will have to be a fact of life (especially for an economy so wretchedly stooped and bent as Zim's) for a very long time to come. It would also appear, as Patrick Bond has so persuasively pointed out elsewhere, that some oppositional policy wonks have never learnt anything from the discretionary economic management of the Smith regime in Rhodesia and the apartheid one in South Africa, both of which manifested a goodly amount of prudence and foresight in establishing a nationally comforting measure of economic autonomy, and in creating very effective speed bumps to reign in footloose, speed demons of the international fast lane.

By the way, it might be necessary to mention reassuringly on this head, that discretionary policy, in so far as it is carefully thought out and also informed by a profoundly democratic impulse (in contradistinction to the blunderbuss approach that Zimmers have become all too familiar with) cannot but work for the greater social weal.

Nor have they listened to the nostalgic worries of the majority of ordinary Russians today, who could poignantly tell them that (were the wheel of history capable of opportune reversal) they most certainly would welcome a vigorous glasnost -- always needed for an invigorating blast of democratic fresh air -  but would be extremely and peevishly wary of a perestroika whose draught plans were laid out by crafty Bretton Woods architects.(1) (see comment at the end in regard this theme)

I find the comments on the diaspora interesting.  I have always wondered why, even in elections past, with such a significat portion of the electorate having moved further afield, the numerical total of voters on the voters roll has remained constant.  The MDC, however, still soldiers on with masochistic fortitude even given these seemingly insoluble brain teasers. Verily, a veritable cornucopia of masochistic valour is needed to conduct oppositional politics in Zim today!  Resoundingly persuasive reasons for participation in such elections will always be conjured up. Such is the nature of being always put in a politically reactive mode!  I do, however, know that had RGM found himself in a like position, he would have been the first one to combat it with extra-parliamentary vigorousness. What!  With all the copious wisdom of the degrees of wisdom under his belt to draw from!

As much as my bilious temperament has been so unsurprisingly provoked that I should like to comment without cease for a few years more, there appears to be still a scintilla of embattled patience, which has not been been crowded out by the riot of emotions in my house of personality, in a remote nook of my mind sagely prompting me to cease and desist here.  If you cannot read anything further than the next fullstop, it might have just succeeded in doing that.

But, hang on, there is still that insistent footnote to deal with below!

(1) In the same reflectively compassionate vein as that of the Russians, many a plaintive observer would probably point out that:

(ii) In regard to the hallowed gospel of the inerrantly functional market society, contemporary highest wisdom would claim that: while it indicated unquestionably meritorious patriotic stewardship, on the part of the US government, to intervene in the market to keep abreast of, and even emulate, sub-systemic patterns of Soviet administration that were responsible  for military, and near military, excellence (the MIGS, the AK 47s and the sputniks, among others), it would have been unforgivable folly (of purgatorial authorship!) to emulate subsystems that were responsible for keeping the general Russian populace well housed, well educated and sanitarily provided.

It can be profitably, if secretively, conjectured that the former variety of emulation, besides being patriotically noble (a sentiment in which the broad population is emotively elevated) is also incidentally and mundanely lucrative to those in the aerospace and military industry -- a species of payoff not so broadly generous to, or even remotely experienced by, the underlying population.

(iii)  The current bailing out (to the tune of half a trillion dollars US) of a few financial houses in the US also springs to mind.  Though it must be pointed out that the current malaise -- malignly repercussing globally and also the cause of a recession in the U.S. -- extends beyond the oft-mentioned mortgage chicanery and includes the agile accounting footwork manifested by many swagger companies that keeps a lot of extra-budgetary transactions off their official ledgers. Great tribute to the free market is this!!

(iii) Perhaps it would be overkill, on my censorious part, to make passing mention of the infinite amount of riders in international agreements which allow the US and European administrations to subsidize unilaterally and liberally their industries at the very same time that "developing" countries experience severely incapacitating deindustrializing throes.  Not quite surprising, since these riders happen to be the brainchildren of lawyerly verbal flair and Daedalian logic with which both the US and Europe are more than adequately blest. Mentally uncomplicated, starry-eyed yokels, such as this author, cannot but help reciting (in regard to the immediately preceding) Oliver Goldsmiths lines on disarmingly impressionable rustics:

"While words of learned length and thundering sound Amazed the gazing rustics rang'd round;"

*John Mutambirwa is has worked with a local chapter of the National Urban League in New Jersey, was an Economics Justice editor for AfricaFiles and is involved in internet advocacy.

** Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

This article , was a bit of a paradox, comprehensive in some ways but highly selective in others. The insinuation that the post-liberation Zimbabwean government whimsically turned down the opportunity to buy back land 'legitimately' purchased by White farmers conveniently glosses over certain factors i.e. the Lancaster agreement masterminded by the Thatcher government that effectively shafted the post-liberation Zimbabwean government and restricted how much money they could put forward to resettle those white farmers if they did choose to buy them out.

Funds that were pledged by the previous UK administration were withdrawn so that Zimbabwean authorities would have had to cough up a substantial amount of money in foreign currency to buy out the white settlements and continue with effective redistribution. The post-liberation government capitulated to this unsatisfactory agreement due to various pressures& were lumbered with its terms for a decade. The article was also too harsh on Mbeki and unrealistic about what he could actually achieve in such a short time as a result of the talks held last year. The man is being pragmatic. Instead of merely pandering to Mugabe as the article suggested, he knows there's no point excluding him from negotiations.

Like it or not, right or wrong, Mugabe is a key player. After all, the West's approach of sanctions etc, with all its double-standards& heavy-handedness has thus far proved mostly ineffective.

Dewa Mavhinga makes a case for the resignation of the Zimbabwean police chief who has vowed to only salute Mugabe

Utterances and statements emerging from Zimbabwe's uniformed forces, starting with Rt Major General Paradzayi Zimondi, Head of Prisons, to the effect that they will not accept or salute either opposition Movement for Democratic Change Presidential candidate Morgan Tsvangirai or Independent and former ruling party minister Simba Makoni (should they win the Presidential election on 29 March) cannot go unchallenged. Police Commissioner-General Augustine Chihuri and Army General Constantine Chiwenga are also on record saying they will not accept Robert Mugabe losing to what they derisively termed 'puppets'. There is no room for such misguided utterances in Zimbabwe; these men of uniform must resign with immediate effect.

Zimbabweans will not be held to ransom by a bunch of men who should know that it is highly unprofessional for the army, police and prisons to delve in political matters or to attempt to influence the vote by spreading fear, alarm and despondence. Political engagement and discourse is for civilians and civilians alone, it is a fundamental right of the people of Zimbabwe to determine through the ballot who they wish to lead them; the uniformed forces must be reminded that this is none of their business. The uniformed forces belong to the people of Zimbabwe and have an obligation to respect democratic political processes and must swear allegiance to whomsoever Zimbabweans chose as leader.

It must be stated clearly that it is treasonous and shameful for the leadership of uniformed forces to issue such irresponsible statements threatening to return to war if President Mugabe loses elections; it is shameful for government of Zimbabwe to remain silent and not condemn outright such utterances; worst of all, it is shameful and unacceptable that SADC and international community should remain silent in the face of these treasonous statements which are obviously meant to sway and compel voters to vote for a value system that is unmarketable and can only be forced down the throats of the masses. Effectively, Chihuri, Chiwenga and Zimondi have become Zanu PF campaign agents, poor ones at that, as they only know the language of threats. It is very strange that, in the face of all these unconstitutional, frivolous and inflammatory utterances, South African President Thabo Mbeki still has the audacity to express hope that Zimbabwe elections will be free and fair. One wonders what benchmarks Mbeki is applying to elections in Zimbabwe; they are certainly not the SADC guidelines, standards and norms for the conduct of free and fair elections.

How can elections in Zimbabwe be possibly be credible, free and fair when the electorate is threatened with war should they vote out Mugabe? Enough is enough, we cannot accept mortgaging Zimbabwe's future to a few cronies who selfishly cling to the past and are keen to destroy Zimbabwe for selfish personal interests. In a new Zimbabwe there will be no place for unqualified and unprofessional people in our uniformed forces, people will hold office on the basis of merit and merit alone, so let beneficiaries of political patronage beware. This old guard in army, police and prisons must know that it is now time for professional uniformed forces who are not in any way part of political formations and that should either Morgan Tsvangirai or Simba Makoni win in the coming elections, if they do not wish to salute they must simply resign and go home. Already they have outlived their usefulness in these institutions and must be replaced in order to take our uniformed forces back to values of impartiality, patriotism, professionalism and allegiance to Zimbabwe's constitutional values. Chihuri, Chiwenga and Zimondi cannot masquerade as kingmakers and godfathers of Zimbabwean politics, they must confine themselves to their terms of engagement which categorically exclude meddling in political affairs of the country.

The rank and file in the army, police and prisons must also reject these patently partisan and unprofessional utterances and be patriotic enough to resist illegal orders to vote for Mugabe. Soldiers, Police officers and prison officers have a right to vote, their vote must be a secret and a personal choice and not an order from anyone. I am hopeful and positive that the views expressed by these cronies are views of a tiny minority in Zimbabwe and do not reflect the views of masses inside and outside uniformed forces who love peace and democracy and are equally fed up with a diet of starvation and rantings of little men allergic to democracy and good governance. As a patriotic Zimbabwean, it is my sincere hope and trust, and my prayer that sense will prevail over madness.

*Dewa Mavhinga is a Zimbabwean Human Rights Lawyer.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Just days after handing over millions of US dollars worth of agricultural equipment, buses and generators at his weekend rallies, Robert Mugabe has announced large salary increases for civil servants, including teachers. According to the state-controlled Herald newspaper, Mugabe announced the increases while addressing a rally at a school in Inyathi, Matabeleland North on Tuesday.

The MDC led by Morgan Tsvangirai wants most regional and foreign observers coming for the elections to be deployed to all rural areas, usually the flash points of political violence in the country. In the past observers have visited rural areas associated with the opposition parties, but have rarely set foot in the Zanu-PF strongholds of the three Mashonaland provinces.

President Robert Mugabe has signed a law requiring all foreign companies operating in Zimbabwe to give majority equity to black Zimbabweans, a move analysts see as the final nail in the coffin of the country's economy. More than 200 British and South African firms that have invested heavily in Zimbabwe will be affected, including Lever Brothers, Barclays Bank, Standard Chartered Bank, Standard Bank, Stanbic Bank, Impala Platinum, Angloplat, Mettalon Gold, Rio Tinto, Edcon, Merchant Bank of Central Africa and several enterprises owned by Anglo American.

Hillary Kundishora looks at the state of electronic and print media in Zimbabwe and argues that far from the media being the people's watchdog, it is the propaganda arm of the state machinery. With independent media harassed or banned, the promise of democracy has already been undermined

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/356/46657media.jpgThe electronic and print media in other value driven and politically mature societies, has acted as the free marketplace of ideas, and as such there is a direct and general causal link between economic prosperity and media freedom with the exception of China, but nevertheless the success story of China does not mean to undermine the causal link prevalent in much of the third and first word nations. The existence of this unique relationship consequently raises an important thesis about economic development and it elucidates a secret for development, which has been the magic for economic prosperity in first world economies.

The media has formed an important source of a knowledge structure, which has unfortunately in some instances in history been manipulated to favour the interests of a minority and selfish click. And as such the knowledge structure has formed an important power structure most widely sought through hook and crook and in the case of Zimbabwe all tricks including unorthodox means have been elicited in order to control the media for selfish reasons remotely connected to national interests.

Media freedom in much of colonial Africa was designed by architects of the colonial establishment with a sinister agenda which was however meant to advance the cause of racial apartheid and with the advent of independence, Africa sought to open all the secret cardboards stocked with skeletons for the world to see. Zimbabwe like other postcolonial states also opened up to scrutiny thus widely embracing values of accountability as opposed to privacy.

It is interesting to note that with the leaderships increasing variance from the values that underpinned the liberation struggle in Zimbabwe the postcolonial leadership ironically later made use of the same tools box which they despised and had fought hard against, to some extent there were now selling out the cause of the struggle for personal and selfish interests devoid of national interests. The ruling party has used its political muscle to manipulate, barn and restrict access to information it considers informing to the general public, in case the public will be able make other choices for the betterment of their destiny.

It is in this context that the birth of an over regulated and partisan media industry, and archaic legislations designed to emasculate the media should be viewed as the rise of the devouring demons. Like demons they consume all the good while leaving everything around in a bad state, and Zimbabwe's state media case is in most way similar to a demon afflicted individual. The end of freedom has given birth to a media which militates against the moral value systems on which independence was based upon, the media is now used as a tool to devour the very people it was supposed to develop and assist.

State resources have been poured to the advantage, favouring sectoral interests, partisan and ZANU PF interests in general to the extent that the level of misinformation in Zimbabwe leaves a lot to be desired. Worse still the propaganda continuum is reflective from the lowest ranking officials to the highest office in the land thus the media has been guilty of complicity and not probing issues while acting as a mental inflicting venom which subject people to massive cognitive bias.

It is important that intellectuals and scholars take stock of events in Zimbabwe so that they realise the role the state media has played in undermining the rule of law and natural justice. Instead of acting as a repository and curator of the rule of law and natural justice the press has been used to churn propaganda which if consumed is damaging to the recipients and the very national interests / sovereignty it purports to protect. The Rwandan genocide provides the testimony of how an equally irresponsible media can be so dangerous to the people it is meant to develop, like an weapon the media is a dangerous tool if in the hands of misguided and immoral people who value selfish interests and Rwanda's genocide offers much convincing testimony to this thesis.

If the state media could one day cease to be a tool furthering private interest and pursue a more inclusive approach which is national than sectoral, issues could be debated and scrutinised while it is acting as marketplace for ideas crucial in informing policy formulation and implementation. The state media could then act as a watchdog of national interests-not interests of cronies but interests favouring even vulnerable members of society.  In normal democracies through this way the media acts as a more reliable source of information for scholars, researchers and investors thus exhibiting and playing a causal link to economic development.

As the March 29 elections approach the state media has been conspicuous in churning out hate speech which is more sectoral than uniting in the face of crucial elections which are important in locating the compass which will be used in directing the country to prosperity. It is in this context that the role of the media in misinforming voters must not be left unchallenged, instead of responsibly reporting and offering all aspirants of public office equal chance to attract voters as is happening in America where Obama and Clinton are contesting without vilifying one another, the state media is busy presenting only the ruling party as the only peoples viable choice notwithstanding the damage it has caused to the collective aspirations of a people.

Simba Makoni a new and promising baby in opposition politics has of late been linked to the West and like Tsvangirai his predecessor they both have been branded sell-outs and an agents of imperialism, worse still Makoni has publicly been likened to a bull frog and a prostitute, of which prostitutes in the African context are heavily despised as immoral as they fall outside the mainstream of society. And for the state media it is fascinating that they have never bothered to unpack why Makoni has been a darling of ZANU PF for the past years yet today they accuse him of political promiscuity, only because he has refused to enter the books history for the wrong reasons and as such he has parted ways with the party that nurtured him.

In any other democratic country the ruling party will have been grilled as to what new there are offering to the people after presiding over the death of a once vibrant economy but alas there are the worst but being presented as the best in the general election. This raises the role of the state media in my thesis of a causal link between media freedom and economic prosperity and it indicts the state media for misinforming and diverting people from the real issues that must form the foundation for debate and consequently the election of public office bearers into public office. The diminished media freedom is responsible creating an atmosphere conducive for the proliferation of a kleptocracy, which has run down an economy once prosperous.

Like the annihilation of property rights, the level of media freedom is directly related to the decadence and the thesis further calls upon all loving and spiritual connected citizens to work extra hard to create a media which is free and accessible which consequently act as a source of reliable information and a curator of the peoples rights. The presents of an election offer the masses of Zimbabwe a chance of renewal and to choose the path to prosperity or continue the present path of doom, and for those in dire need of economic revival it is also indispensable that there be a free media in order that we achieve a stable economy. In fact it is crucial that we revert back to valuing the constitution, which is the supreme document that governs and lays out the rule law and freedom of expression as a corner stone for economic prosperity.

*Hillary Kundishora is a scholar of strategic management. You can visit his blog at

**Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Blessing-Miles Tendi argues that If Mugabe is to stand trial for crimes against humanity, he must do so as close as possible to the site of his crimes - Zimbabwe.

On February 27, 2008, the BBC’s John Simpson asked Simba Makoni if he ‘would not stand against the principle of sending President Mugabe to The Hague’.

Makoni replied: ‘No. We will be a full member of the international community and we will act in accordance with the normal standards of international justice’.

International newswires immediately went into an excited frenzy about the prospect of Mugabe standing trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC), which functions to try individuals for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

This ‘international’ excitement needs to be shot dead in its tracks.

Since the treaty for the ICC was assented to by countries around the globe in 1998, 105 countries have ratified the treaty to date. Zimbabwe is not one of these 105 countries hence the ICC has no jurisdiction over Zimbabwe.

Furthermore, the ICC treaty came into effect in 2002. The ICC can only prosecute crimes committed after 2002. The crime that could provide the strongest basis for Mugabe standing trial at a court such as the ICC is the Gukurahundi atrocities. However, the Gukurahundi was perpetrated before 2002.

Mugabe cannot stand trial for the Gukurahundi at the ICC.

Mugabe committed many crimes after 2002 but the burden is on those who advocate for Mugabe standing trial at The Hague to prove how these crimes qualify as genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity.

And while it is within the power of the UN Security Council to refer a human rights situation to the ICC for investigation, this has failed to materialise for years now and it is debatable whether consensus for such a measure can ever be reached given some of Zimbabwe’s long standing allies on the Security Council.

States that have not ratified the ICC treaty can opt to accept the court’s jurisdiction but for Zimbabwe, this option is undesirable and unnecessary.

Zimbabwe’s justice system has been corrupted by Zanu PF over the years but it remains competent and it has retained a considerable level of independence despite manifold state pressures. More importantly, there is a pertinent tension between the universal jurisdiction embodied in the ICC and the local.

Justice that is local or national is better felt than justice delivered in distant international courts such as the ICC.

Justice at The Hague is not felt by widows deep in Tsholotsho who lost their husbands to the Gukurahundi. It is not felt by the homeless and displaced victims of Murambatsvina who are living like cockroaches on Caledonia farm. If Mugabe is to stand trial, he must do so as close as possible to the site of his crimes - Zimbabwe.

The appropriate place for Mugabe to face the judgment of history is in Matabeleland where he had thousands slaughtered and in the areas where Murambatsvina was conducted.

There are many unanswered questions in Zimbabwean history, and there is a need for national healing and reconciliation. Mugabe has a part to play in addressing these issues, and he can only do so adequately if his fate and confessions are a national affair.

The likes of John Simpson, the ‘international’ media, the executive director of the International Bar Association Mark Ellis, and some members of the British House of Commons, who make a lot of noise about Mugabe standing trial at The Hague must be reminded that Zimbabweans have a strong historical perspective, and that Zimbabweans are not blind to their double standards.

For instance, were it possible for Mugabe to stand trial for the Gukurahundi at The Hague, serious questions about British sins of omission and commission in Zimbabwe would arise. Britain was aware of the killings in Matabeleland but in 1983, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Summit in India, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher did not raise the matter of the Gukurahundi.

In the same year, Malcolm Rifkind, Foreign Office Minister, visited Zimbabwe and held diplomatic consultations with Mugabe. Rifkind did not mention the Gukurahundi in his report to the British House of Commons on his return to London.

Perence ‘Black Jesus’ Shiri, the dreaded commander of the Fifth Brigade during the Gukurahundi, was the first Zimbabwe National Army (ZNA) officer to attend London’s Royal College of Defence Studies as an honoured guest in 1986. The Royal College of Defence Studies describes itself as ‘the senior Defence academic institution in the United Kingdom… the most prestigious institution of its kind in the world’.

Retired General Edward Jones, Director of the British Military Advisory and Training Team (BMATT) in Zimbabwe from 1983 to 1985, explained the motive for Britain’s offer of tenure at the Royal College to Shiri as follows: “Undoubtedly, he was the man who was going to be important in Zimbabwe and I think it was important that we should influence him positively in so far as we could.” In 2000, Tony Blair’s Labour government authorised the sale of spare parts for British made Hawk 200 jets to the Zimbabwe Air Force, now commanded by the same Perence Shiri. Farm invasions during the Third Chimurenga were coordinated by ZNA officials with Shiri playing a key coordinating role.

The military man whose excesses Britain had turned a blind eye to in the past, honoured at London’s Royal College and supplied with military parts became a key impediment to attempts at ending the violent farm invasions. In light of this, the ‘international’ moral grandstanding about Mugabe going to The Hague must be abandoned.

There is no powerful ‘international’ lobby for Tony Blair and his associates - or George Bush and his cronies for that matter - to stand trial at the ICC for their naked crimes in Iraq. The few criminal cases the ICC is dealing with today involve countries such as the Central African Republic, Sudan, the DRC and Uganda. Thorny questions about African sovereignty are brought into play by this focus on crimes in Africa. There is clearly one standard of international justice for the powerful and another one for the weak.

The ‘international’ clamour for Mugabe to stand trial at The Hague must be seen against this background.

*Blessing-Miles Tendi is a researcher at Oxford University.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

The National Constitutional Assembly strongly condemns the arrogance being displayed by the Zimbabwean government and President Robert Mugabe for being at liberty to authorize who will come and observe elections this March.

President Mugabe has already hinted that he will invite only his friends and those perceived to be enemies of the state will not be welcome to come and observe.

The Zimbabwean leader was also recently quoted as saying those in the European Union and Commonwealth were not invited to come and observe elections. The NCA is worried that Mugabe is taking his elevating personal feelings about own foes ahead of national interests.

The NCA is worried that because Mugabe had differences with the Commonwealth he is taking those differences to an election which himself is a competitor and dictate who is supposed to come and this contradicts his gospel of patriotism as he is putting personal interests above everything.

Foreign Affairs Minister Simbarashe Mumbengegwi told diplomats in Harare on Thursday that the government had selected 47 foreign observer teams, "on the basis of reciprocity, objectivity and impartiality in their relationship with Zimbabwe."

"Clearly, those who believe that the only free and fair election is where the opposition wins, have been excluded since the ruling party, Zanu PF, is poised to score yet another triumph," Mumbengegwi said.

It is the feeling of NCA that such moves by the government already jeopardize chances of those elections being legitimized by the international community and traditional supporters of ZANU PF will obviously endorse the elections as free and fair just like in the past.

NCA wants to notify all concerned in the upcoming 29 polls that the coming elections should not be reduced to a birthday party where only friends are invited but that it is a national election which should be open to scrutiny from diverse societies.

Already signs of rigging are set in place, the voters' roll is in shambles, the delimitation of constituencies was done in a patronage base and these signs coupled with manipulation of state resources for campaign purposes such as the reserve bank, national youth militia to intimidate opposition supporters will even make this election worst and far from being legitimate.

The NCA reiterates its long standing point that only a new people driven democratic constitution in Zimbabwe will make it a point that an Independent Electoral Commission will be responsible for accrediting who comes and observe elections in the country.

Currently the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission which obviously is dominated by ZANU PF stalwarts and sympathizers is failing to independently execute its duties as there is massive interference from the foreign affairs and presidency department.

The NCA calls on SADC, AU and all concerned parties to condemn such activities which are being demonstrated by the Robert Mugabe regime in trying to secure yet another victory through controversial means.

State media said Russia was the only European country invited while 23 African and several Asian nations would also monitor the polls, along with teams from regional economic blocs.

All 13 SADC states (Angola, Malawi, Zambia, Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, Mozambique, Swaziland, Lesotho, South Africa, Mauritius, DRC and Madagascar) have been invited alongside 10 other African countries, namely Senegal, Algeria, Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, Libya, Uganda, Ethiopia and Sudan.

Five Asian countries -- China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia and Iran -- and four countries from the Americas -- Brazil, Jamaica, Venezuela and Nicaragua -- will observe the elections.

African regional organisations invited are SADC, the African Union, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, NAM, the Economic Community of West African States, Pan African Parliament, Economic Community of Central African States and East African Community.

Among the invited sub-regional organisations are the Africa, Caribbean and the Pacific, Association of South East Asian Nations, MAGREB Union, Community of Portuguese Speaking (Lusophone) Countries and Inter-Governmental Authority on Development.

South Africa has indicated it will send an observer mission with 54 members drawn from government, the parliament, the political opposition and civil society.

*Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org